The Gauhati High Court has raised sharp questions over the allotment of nearly 3,000 bighas of land in Dima Hasao district to Mahabal Cements, underscoring the need to prioritise tribal rights and environmental safeguards in the Sixth Schedule area.
The matter came up during the hearing of two writ petitions—one filed by the cement company, and another by local residents who alleged they were being evicted from land they had lawfully occupied. Taking note of the scale of the allotment, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi remarked that such a decision involved issues far beyond the company’s needs.
“Three thousand bighas! Practically the entire district? What kind of decision is this?” the judge observed during the proceedings. He directed the Standing Counsel for the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC), Shri C. Sarma, to submit the policy papers and regulations under which such a large allocation had been permitted.
The company’s counsel argued that the land in question was barren and essential for establishing a factory and carrying out mining activities. It was also claimed that the allotment followed a tender-based process for a mining lease.
However, the court noted that Dima Hasao is a Sixth Schedule district, where the constitutional framework requires special protection for the land and rights of tribal communities. “Your need is not the issue, the public interest is the issue,” Justice Medhi underlined.
The bench further highlighted that the proposed site lies in Umrangso, a region recognised as environmentally sensitive. The area is known for its natural hot springs, migratory bird population, and wildlife, all of which, the court observed, must be factored into any decision involving land use.
The observations bring to the fore a larger debate over industrial expansion in tribal and ecologically fragile regions of the Northeast. While the state has often encouraged industrial projects in the name of development and employment, local communities and environmental groups have repeatedly flagged the risks to traditional land rights, biodiversity, and long-term sustainability.
By questioning the rationale of the allotment, the High Court has placed the focus firmly on whether such decisions are made in line with constitutional protections and ecological realities, rather than short-term industrial interests. The matter is expected to come up for further hearing once the relevant policy documents are placed before the court.
